Re: Survey: Use of this list for Calls for Papers

[Hugh Glaser]

Hi Phil,
Good question.
I’m afraid none of the username/passwords I have for w3.org seem to work.
Can you give me a hint at which pair I should be using, or tell me how to 
retrieve/reset, please?

While I’m here… :-)
a) I think the idea of allowing CFPs, as long as they clearly have [CFP] or 
whatever in the subject line, is great.
b) We could pick one of the two lists, then we would see less duplication; I 
would suggest semweb, as that embraces LD.
(Maybe I would get to vote that way, but I don’t know what the 4 questions are 
:-) )
c) I don’t want to have CFPs shortened - I often read my email when I am 
offline (in fact I keep such emails to read offline), and it is a pain when the 
information is all “just a click away”, but I can’t get it.

Best
Hugh 

> On 30 Mar 2016, at 12:21, Phil Archer  wrote:
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> A perennial topic at W3C is whether we should allow calls for papers to be 
> posted to our mailing lists. Many argue, passionately, that we should not 
> allow any CfPs on any lists. It is now likely that this will be the policy, 
> with any message detected as being a CfP marked as spam (and therefore 
> blocked).
> 
> Historically, the semantic-web and public-lod lists have been used for CfPs 
> and we are happy for this to continue *iff* you want it.
> 
> Last time we asked, the consensus was that CfPs were seen as useful, but it's 
> time to ask you again.
> 
> Please take a minute to answer the 4 question, no need for free text, survey 
> at https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/1/1/
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Phil.
> 
> -- 
> 
> 
> Phil Archer
> W3C Data Activity Lead
> http://www.w3.org/2013/data/
> 
> http://philarcher.org
> +44 (0)7887 767755
> @philarcher1
> 

Re: Survey: Use of this list for Calls for Papers

[John Erickson]

+1 to stuff like "[CfP]" (and also "[RFP]," etc) added to Subject lines.

+100 to people refraining from submitting bogusly long [CfP]'s. These
simply AREN'T necessary! [CfP] emails should be limited to very brief
summaries of the CfP --- possibly "structured," but a very few
elements, and a LINK.

There's this thing called "The Web" with which the bogusly-long
content can be presented in full, and "linked"-to by this thing called
a "URL..."

ALSO: Phil, the max size of allowed emails can be set, to something
like 10K bytes. That will stop all sorts of badness, including
overly-copied discussions threads.

-- 
John S. Erickson, Ph.D.
Director of Operations, The Rensselaer IDEA
Deputy Director, Web Science Research Center (RPI)
 
Twitter & Skype: olyerickson

Re: Survey: Use of this list for Calls for Papers

[Phil Archer]

On 31/03/2016 09:15, Dimitris Kontokostas wrote:

imho, what kind of emails are spam is something subjective and everyone on
these lists might have a different opinion.
However, for most people a spam is a spam, no matter how long, short,
well-written or structured the email is.

Whatever we decide one thing that would definitely help it to make all
these emails easier to filter out (or in).
One way is to *require* specific keywords on the subject (e.g. [CFP]).


That's a good shout, Dimitris. I'll investigate whether our smarts are 
smart enough to be able to block a CfP as spam *unless* it has [CfP] in 
the subject line.,





If all the major mailing lists have such common requirements, eventually
everyone will use these conventions and people can create more efficient
filters on their email clients.

Cheers,
Dimitris



On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 10:17 AM, Phil Archer  wrote:


Thanks everyone for the replies so far and for the interesting discussion.

In an ideal world, yes, we'd build a system that supported the CfP and
included everything from venue to chairs to topics, to the PC and a special
place for Sarven to keep all his PDFs (sic). Oh and it would publish the
papers, link to the datasets, extract all the info and expose it as LD yada
yada.

And then... we'd have a load of spam saying "look, I uploaded my CfP to
the master system."

Seriously, a structured system for conference and workshop materials would
be terrific and, yes, we should do it. I am embarrassed that dog food is
entirely absent from my own workshop CfPs. Count W3C/ERCIM in for a project
proposal to fix that.

But, for now, my dichotomy is not false. Do you want CfPs on these lists
or not? The survey results to date are pointing in a specific direction,
which is very helpful.

Thanks

Phil.


On 30/03/2016 20:31, Ruben Verborgh wrote:


A simple plain text email works just fine.




Plain text works fine for me—it's just that there's too much of it right
now.

Efficient CfPs that inform people with the least possible amount of words
would be an added value to a topic-specific mailing list like this.

Some common practices, like listing the whole PC
and the conference's excellent reputation are just not helpful.
And that is what, I believe, a mailing list should focus on:
conveying helpful information to readers.

I think it's important to say this in the discussion,
because now it's presented as a false dichotomy:
either we want CfPs or not.
Maybe the more interesting question is:
how can we have better CfPs that are actually helpful?

Best,

Ruben



--


Phil Archer
W3C Data Activity Lead
http://www.w3.org/2013/data/

http://philarcher.org
+44 (0)7887 767755
@philarcher1







--


Phil Archer
W3C Data Activity Lead
http://www.w3.org/2013/data/

http://philarcher.org
+44 (0)7887 767755
@philarcher1

Re: Survey: Use of this list for Calls for Papers

[Dimitris Kontokostas]

imho, what kind of emails are spam is something subjective and everyone on
these lists might have a different opinion.
However, for most people a spam is a spam, no matter how long, short,
well-written or structured the email is.

Whatever we decide one thing that would definitely help it to make all
these emails easier to filter out (or in).
One way is to *require* specific keywords on the subject (e.g. [CFP]).

If all the major mailing lists have such common requirements, eventually
everyone will use these conventions and people can create more efficient
filters on their email clients.

Cheers,
Dimitris



On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 10:17 AM, Phil Archer  wrote:

> Thanks everyone for the replies so far and for the interesting discussion.
>
> In an ideal world, yes, we'd build a system that supported the CfP and
> included everything from venue to chairs to topics, to the PC and a special
> place for Sarven to keep all his PDFs (sic). Oh and it would publish the
> papers, link to the datasets, extract all the info and expose it as LD yada
> yada.
>
> And then... we'd have a load of spam saying "look, I uploaded my CfP to
> the master system."
>
> Seriously, a structured system for conference and workshop materials would
> be terrific and, yes, we should do it. I am embarrassed that dog food is
> entirely absent from my own workshop CfPs. Count W3C/ERCIM in for a project
> proposal to fix that.
>
> But, for now, my dichotomy is not false. Do you want CfPs on these lists
> or not? The survey results to date are pointing in a specific direction,
> which is very helpful.
>
> Thanks
>
> Phil.
>
>
> On 30/03/2016 20:31, Ruben Verborgh wrote:
>
>> A simple plain text email works just fine.
>>>
>>
>> Plain text works fine for me—it's just that there's too much of it right
>> now.
>>
>> Efficient CfPs that inform people with the least possible amount of words
>> would be an added value to a topic-specific mailing list like this.
>>
>> Some common practices, like listing the whole PC
>> and the conference's excellent reputation are just not helpful.
>> And that is what, I believe, a mailing list should focus on:
>> conveying helpful information to readers.
>>
>> I think it's important to say this in the discussion,
>> because now it's presented as a false dichotomy:
>> either we want CfPs or not.
>> Maybe the more interesting question is:
>> how can we have better CfPs that are actually helpful?
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Ruben
>>
>>
> --
>
>
> Phil Archer
> W3C Data Activity Lead
> http://www.w3.org/2013/data/
>
> http://philarcher.org
> +44 (0)7887 767755
> @philarcher1
>
>


-- 
Kontokostas Dimitris

Re: Survey: Use of this list for Calls for Papers

[Phil Archer]

Thanks everyone for the replies so far and for the interesting discussion.

In an ideal world, yes, we'd build a system that supported the CfP and 
included everything from venue to chairs to topics, to the PC and a 
special place for Sarven to keep all his PDFs (sic). Oh and it would 
publish the papers, link to the datasets, extract all the info and 
expose it as LD yada yada.


And then... we'd have a load of spam saying "look, I uploaded my CfP to 
the master system."


Seriously, a structured system for conference and workshop materials 
would be terrific and, yes, we should do it. I am embarrassed that dog 
food is entirely absent from my own workshop CfPs. Count W3C/ERCIM in 
for a project proposal to fix that.


But, for now, my dichotomy is not false. Do you want CfPs on these lists 
or not? The survey results to date are pointing in a specific direction, 
which is very helpful.


Thanks

Phil.

On 30/03/2016 20:31, Ruben Verborgh wrote:

A simple plain text email works just fine.


Plain text works fine for me—it's just that there's too much of it right now.

Efficient CfPs that inform people with the least possible amount of words
would be an added value to a topic-specific mailing list like this.

Some common practices, like listing the whole PC
and the conference's excellent reputation are just not helpful.
And that is what, I believe, a mailing list should focus on:
conveying helpful information to readers.

I think it's important to say this in the discussion,
because now it's presented as a false dichotomy:
either we want CfPs or not.
Maybe the more interesting question is:
how can we have better CfPs that are actually helpful?

Best,

Ruben



--


Phil Archer
W3C Data Activity Lead
http://www.w3.org/2013/data/

http://philarcher.org
+44 (0)7887 767755
@philarcher1

Re: Survey: Use of this list for Calls for Papers

[Kjetil Kjernsmo]

On Wednesday 30. March 2016 10.19.51 Krzysztof Janowicz wrote:
> > +1 for publishing structured CfPs (by having guidlines as Ruben
> > sugested) I am not sure if Schema.org or other existing vocabularies
> > have a suitable schema for CfPs.
> 
> Let's not make this complicated. A simple plain text email works just
> fine.

I disagree, and the evidence is in the archives of these lists. To non-
academics, most of these lists are just spam.

Seriously, if we can't dogfood something that can match a paper to a 
venue, then how can we ever pretend to solve anybody else's problems?

Emails of plain text is just terrible, and what we see are that they are 
sent several times to all the lists the author could get their hands on. 
Why? Obviously because it is a terribly inefficient method of communication! 
And what is the effect on the community? We rarely see discussion going on 
on semantic-web any longer, again obviously one of the reasons is that the 
CfP spam has scared many of the hackers away.

The academic semweb community needs to solve this problem, so that CfPs 
become a thing of the past. Conferences should published structured 
information on the Web, and authors should have mechanisms to search for 
appropriate venues for their work, e.g. by creating a client that will 
create a digest of a paper and match that to published calls. How about a 
series of Challenges on ISWC and ESWC to establish this?

Until that has been established, I support that structured CfPs may be 
sent to semantic-web only, and be banned from other lists. People who are 
active contributors to other lists may of course send a targetted heads-up 
to the lists where they are active. If your workshop is about evolution of 
SPARQL, obviously sparql-dev is an appropriate venue to discuss the 
workshop.

Cheers,

Kjetil

Re: Survey: Use of this list for Calls for Papers

[Ruben Verborgh]

> A simple plain text email works just fine.

Plain text works fine for me—it's just that there's too much of it right now.

Efficient CfPs that inform people with the least possible amount of words
would be an added value to a topic-specific mailing list like this.

Some common practices, like listing the whole PC
and the conference's excellent reputation are just not helpful.
And that is what, I believe, a mailing list should focus on:
conveying helpful information to readers.

I think it's important to say this in the discussion,
because now it's presented as a false dichotomy:
either we want CfPs or not.
Maybe the more interesting question is:
how can we have better CfPs that are actually helpful?

Best,

Ruben

Re: Survey: Use of this list for Calls for Papers

[Dimitris Kontokostas]

On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 6:01 PM, Krzysztof Janowicz 
wrote:

> Besides being the primary W3C outlet for SW related topics,
>> semantic-...@w3.org is in my feeling also the primary outlet for the
>> research community in this area. So, spreading calls for papers there is as
>> natural as using dbworld in the databases community.
>>
>> My feeling is that of we ban CfPs on this list, we cut one of the major
>> distribution channels for CfPs in our community.
>>
>
> I absolutely agree. In fact CfPs are one of the reasons why I am on this
> mailinglist.
>

Sorry but I cannot see how CFPs contribute to research.
Sending post conference / workshop summaries probably would but sending
CFPs for a conference multiple times for multiple tracks & multiple
workshops, sometimes deadline extensions and early bird / late
registrations sounds more like spam. I am saying this knowing that I have
also done this a few times.

Personally I have ~250 distinct CFPs in my inbox from 2016 alone and I
already know where I plan to submit without looking at any CFP. Actually
when I want to look up something I search online and not on my mails
anymore because it is easier.

Looking at public-lod in March I see ~ 30-40% of emails related to cfps and
~20% are related to ESWC alone.
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lod/2016Mar/subject.html

This is not to say that we should ban CFPs but there must be something we
can do to improve this situation.

Best,
Dimitris

-- 
Kontokostas Dimitris

Re: Survey: Use of this list for Calls for Papers

[Krzysztof Janowicz]

+1 for publishing structured CfPs (by having guidlines as Ruben sugested)
I am not sure if Schema.org or other existing vocabularies have a 
suitable schema for CfPs.


Let's not make this complicated. A simple plain text email works just fine.


On 03/30/2016 09:37 AM, Ali Khalili wrote:

+1 for publishing structured CfPs (by having guidlines as Ruben sugested)
I am not sure if Schema.org or other existing vocabularies have a 
suitable schema for CfPs.
I remember, once we did an analysis of the SemWeb mailing list looking 
specially for CfPs. The results showed a growing number of 
heterogeneous CfPs.
I found the video of our idea for 'A Semantic Ecosystem for CfPs' at 
http://videolectures.net/eswc2012_wiljes_khalili_semantic_ecosystem/
There are potentially a plenty of applications if structured CfPs are 
provided!


Best,
Ali

http://ali1k.com

Department of Computer Science &
The Network Institute,
Knowledge Representation
& Reasoning Research Group,
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
http://krr.cs.vu.nl/

On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 5:01 PM, Krzysztof Janowicz > wrote:


Besides being the primary W3C outlet for SW related topics,
semantic-...@w3.org  is in my
feeling also the primary outlet for the research community in
this area. So, spreading calls for papers there is as natural
as using dbworld in the databases community.

My feeling is that of we ban CfPs on this list, we cut one of
the major distribution channels for CfPs in our community.


I absolutely agree. In fact CfPs are one of the reasons why I am
on this mailinglist.

Best,
Krzysztof



On 03/30/2016 05:58 AM, Axel Polleres wrote:

Besides being the primary W3C outlet for SW related topics,
semantic-...@w3.org  is in my
feeling also the primary outlet for the research community in
this area. So, spreading calls for papers there is as natural
as using dbworld in the databases community.

My feeling is that of we ban CfPs on this list, we cut one of
the major distribution channels for CfPs in our community.

One way around that (and I am not sure myself whether I'd be
in favor of that or just happy with the status quo) would be
to - following the example of dbworld - allow CfPs only to be
sent through a (captcha-protected) Web form, and block/ban
CfPs from individual users only, but still distribute them
through this list.

just my two cents,
Axel

--
url: http://www.polleres.net/  twitter: @AxelPolleres

On 30 Mar 2016, at 13:21, Phil Archer > wrote:

Dear all,

A perennial topic at W3C is whether we should allow calls
for papers to be posted to our mailing lists. Many argue,
passionately, that we should not allow any CfPs on any
lists. It is now likely that this will be the policy, with
any message detected as being a CfP marked as spam (and
therefore blocked).

Historically, the semantic-web and public-lod lists have
been used for CfPs and we are happy for this to continue
*iff* you want it.

Last time we asked, the consensus was that CfPs were seen
as useful, but it's time to ask you again.

Please take a minute to answer the 4 question, no need for
free text, survey at https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/1/1/

Thanks

Phil.

-- 



Phil Archer
W3C Data Activity Lead
http://www.w3.org/2013/data/

http://philarcher.org
+44 (0)7887 767755 
@philarcher1




-- 
Krzysztof Janowicz


Geography Department, University of California, Santa Barbara
4830 Ellison Hall, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-4060

Email: j...@geog.ucsb.edu 
Webpage: http://geog.ucsb.edu/~jano/ 
Semantic Web Journal: http://www.semantic-web-journal.net






--
Krzysztof Janowicz

Geography Department, University of California, Santa Barbara
4830 Ellison Hall, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-4060

Email: j...@geog.ucsb.edu
Webpage: http://geog.ucsb.edu/~jano/
Semantic Web Journal: http://www.semantic-web-journal.net

Re: Survey: Use of this list for Calls for Papers

[Ali Khalili]

+1 for publishing structured CfPs (by having guidlines as Ruben sugested)
I am not sure if Schema.org or other existing vocabularies have a suitable
schema for CfPs.
I remember, once we did an analysis of the SemWeb mailing list looking
specially for CfPs. The results showed a growing number of heterogeneous
CfPs.
I found the video of our idea for 'A Semantic Ecosystem for CfPs' at
http://videolectures.net/eswc2012_wiljes_khalili_semantic_ecosystem/
There are potentially a plenty of applications if structured CfPs are
provided!

Best,
Ali

http://ali1k.com

Department of Computer Science &
The Network Institute,
Knowledge Representation
& Reasoning Research Group,
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
http://krr.cs.vu.nl/

On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 5:01 PM, Krzysztof Janowicz 
wrote:

> Besides being the primary W3C outlet for SW related topics,
>> semantic-...@w3.org is in my feeling also the primary outlet for the
>> research community in this area. So, spreading calls for papers there is as
>> natural as using dbworld in the databases community.
>>
>> My feeling is that of we ban CfPs on this list, we cut one of the major
>> distribution channels for CfPs in our community.
>>
>
> I absolutely agree. In fact CfPs are one of the reasons why I am on this
> mailinglist.
>
> Best,
> Krzysztof
>
>
>
> On 03/30/2016 05:58 AM, Axel Polleres wrote:
>
>> Besides being the primary W3C outlet for SW related topics,
>> semantic-...@w3.org is in my feeling also the primary outlet for the
>> research community in this area. So, spreading calls for papers there is as
>> natural as using dbworld in the databases community.
>>
>> My feeling is that of we ban CfPs on this list, we cut one of the major
>> distribution channels for CfPs in our community.
>>
>> One way around that (and I am not sure myself whether I'd be in favor of
>> that or just happy with the status quo) would be to - following the example
>> of dbworld - allow CfPs only to be sent through a (captcha-protected) Web
>> form, and block/ban CfPs from individual users only, but still distribute
>> them through this list.
>>
>> just my two cents,
>> Axel
>>
>> --
>> url: http://www.polleres.net/  twitter: @AxelPolleres
>>
>> On 30 Mar 2016, at 13:21, Phil Archer  wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> A perennial topic at W3C is whether we should allow calls for papers to
>>> be posted to our mailing lists. Many argue, passionately, that we should
>>> not allow any CfPs on any lists. It is now likely that this will be the
>>> policy, with any message detected as being a CfP marked as spam (and
>>> therefore blocked).
>>>
>>> Historically, the semantic-web and public-lod lists have been used for
>>> CfPs and we are happy for this to continue *iff* you want it.
>>>
>>> Last time we asked, the consensus was that CfPs were seen as useful, but
>>> it's time to ask you again.
>>>
>>> Please take a minute to answer the 4 question, no need for free text,
>>> survey at https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/1/1/
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> Phil.
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>>
>>> Phil Archer
>>> W3C Data Activity Lead
>>> http://www.w3.org/2013/data/
>>>
>>> http://philarcher.org
>>> +44 (0)7887 767755
>>> @philarcher1
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> --
> Krzysztof Janowicz
>
> Geography Department, University of California, Santa Barbara
> 4830 Ellison Hall, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-4060
>
> Email: j...@geog.ucsb.edu
> Webpage: http://geog.ucsb.edu/~jano/
> Semantic Web Journal: http://www.semantic-web-journal.net
>
>
>

RE: Survey: Use of this list for Calls for Papers

[Obrst, Leo J.]

One thought is a dedicated W3C announcement list, e.g., 
semweb-ld-annou...@w3.org, or something similar. 

Thanks,
Leo

>-Original Message-
>From: Ruben Verborgh [mailto:ruben.verbo...@ugent.be]
>Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 10:19 AM
>To: Axel Polleres 
>Cc: Phil Archer ; Semantic Web IG ;
>LOD List 
>Subject: Re: Survey: Use of this list for Calls for Papers
>
>Dear all,
>
>Thanks Phil for bringing up this debate.
>I agree with Axel about the list being a natural place.
>
>However, I think we need something else:
>a clear guideline for efficient CfPs.
>Too often, CfPs look like the braindump
>of 10 different people all mixed together.
>The more information it contains,
>the better the sender seems to think it is.
>Except that it's not.
>(Not to mention the obligatory apologies
> on top, which only annoy people more.)
>
>If we mail around CfPs, they should be efficient;
>having a suggested template would really help.
>As far as I'm concerned, a CfP only contains:
>- who should submit and why
>- the title and place
>- dates (deadline / event)
>- URL for all info
>All other details are irrelevant at first.
>Just 1 screen-no scrolling-instead of 10.
>
>By making CfPs more efficient,
>they also become more useful for readers,
>and hence much more of an added value
>to subscribers than they are now.
>
>Best,
>
>Ruben

Re: Survey: Use of this list for Calls for Papers

[Krzysztof Janowicz]

Besides being the primary W3C outlet for SW related topics, semantic-...@w3.org 
is in my feeling also the primary outlet for the research community in this 
area. So, spreading calls for papers there is as natural as using dbworld in 
the databases community.

My feeling is that of we ban CfPs on this list, we cut one of the major 
distribution channels for CfPs in our community.


I absolutely agree. In fact CfPs are one of the reasons why I am on this 
mailinglist.


Best,
Krzysztof



On 03/30/2016 05:58 AM, Axel Polleres wrote:

Besides being the primary W3C outlet for SW related topics, semantic-...@w3.org 
is in my feeling also the primary outlet for the research community in this 
area. So, spreading calls for papers there is as natural as using dbworld in 
the databases community.

My feeling is that of we ban CfPs on this list, we cut one of the major 
distribution channels for CfPs in our community.

One way around that (and I am not sure myself whether I'd be in favor of that 
or just happy with the status quo) would be to - following the example of 
dbworld - allow CfPs only to be sent through a (captcha-protected) Web form, 
and block/ban CfPs from individual users only, but still distribute them 
through this list.

just my two cents,
Axel

--
url: http://www.polleres.net/  twitter: @AxelPolleres


On 30 Mar 2016, at 13:21, Phil Archer  wrote:

Dear all,

A perennial topic at W3C is whether we should allow calls for papers to be 
posted to our mailing lists. Many argue, passionately, that we should not allow 
any CfPs on any lists. It is now likely that this will be the policy, with any 
message detected as being a CfP marked as spam (and therefore blocked).

Historically, the semantic-web and public-lod lists have been used for CfPs and 
we are happy for this to continue *iff* you want it.

Last time we asked, the consensus was that CfPs were seen as useful, but it's 
time to ask you again.

Please take a minute to answer the 4 question, no need for free text, survey at 
https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/1/1/

Thanks

Phil.

--


Phil Archer
W3C Data Activity Lead
http://www.w3.org/2013/data/

http://philarcher.org
+44 (0)7887 767755
@philarcher1






--
Krzysztof Janowicz

Geography Department, University of California, Santa Barbara
4830 Ellison Hall, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-4060

Email: j...@geog.ucsb.edu
Webpage: http://geog.ucsb.edu/~jano/
Semantic Web Journal: http://www.semantic-web-journal.net

Re: Survey: Use of this list for Calls for Papers

[Ruben Verborgh]

Dear all,

Thanks Phil for bringing up this debate.
I agree with Axel about the list being a natural place.

However, I think we need something else:
a clear guideline for efficient CfPs.
Too often, CfPs look like the braindump
of 10 different people all mixed together.
The more information it contains,
the better the sender seems to think it is.
Except that it's not.
(Not to mention the obligatory apologies
 on top, which only annoy people more.)

If we mail around CfPs, they should be efficient;
having a suggested template would really help.
As far as I'm concerned, a CfP only contains:
– who should submit and why
– the title and place
– dates (deadline / event)
– URL for all info
All other details are irrelevant at first.
Just 1 screen—no scrolling—instead of 10.

By making CfPs more efficient,
they also become more useful for readers,
and hence much more of an added value
to subscribers than they are now.

Best,

Ruben

Re: Survey: Use of this list for Calls for Papers

[Marko Tkalcic]

Hi Axel,

I support your position.

Best

Marko

On 30. 03. 16 14:58, Axel Polleres wrote:

Besides being the primary W3C outlet for SW related topics, semantic-...@w3.org 
is in my feeling also the primary outlet for the research community in this 
area. So, spreading calls for papers there is as natural as using dbworld in 
the databases community.

My feeling is that of we ban CfPs on this list, we cut one of the major 
distribution channels for CfPs in our community.

One way around that (and I am not sure myself whether I'd be in favor of that 
or just happy with the status quo) would be to - following the example of 
dbworld - allow CfPs only to be sent through a (captcha-protected) Web form, 
and block/ban CfPs from individual users only, but still distribute them 
through this list.

just my two cents,
Axel

--
url: http://www.polleres.net/  twitter: @AxelPolleres


On 30 Mar 2016, at 13:21, Phil Archer  wrote:

Dear all,

A perennial topic at W3C is whether we should allow calls for papers to be 
posted to our mailing lists. Many argue, passionately, that we should not allow 
any CfPs on any lists. It is now likely that this will be the policy, with any 
message detected as being a CfP marked as spam (and therefore blocked).

Historically, the semantic-web and public-lod lists have been used for CfPs and 
we are happy for this to continue *iff* you want it.

Last time we asked, the consensus was that CfPs were seen as useful, but it's 
time to ask you again.

Please take a minute to answer the 4 question, no need for free text, survey at 
https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/1/1/

Thanks

Phil.

--


Phil Archer
W3C Data Activity Lead
http://www.w3.org/2013/data/

http://philarcher.org
+44 (0)7887 767755
@philarcher1






--
--
Dr. Marko Tkalcic
mailto:marko.tkal...@gmail.com
http://markotkalcic.wordpress.com
Skype : markotkalcic
Twitter: https://twitter.com/#!/RecSysMare
Linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/in/markotkalcic
Google Scholar: http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=JQ2puysJ
--

Re: Survey: Use of this list for Calls for Papers

[Sarven Capadisli]

On 2016-03-30 13:21, Phil Archer wrote:

Dear all,

A perennial topic at W3C is whether we should allow calls for papers to
be posted to our mailing lists. Many argue, passionately, that we should
not allow any CfPs on any lists. It is now likely that this will be the
policy, with any message detected as being a CfP marked as spam (and
therefore blocked).

Historically, the semantic-web and public-lod lists have been used for
CfPs and we are happy for this to continue *iff* you want it.

Last time we asked, the consensus was that CfPs were seen as useful, but
it's time to ask you again.

Please take a minute to answer the 4 question, no need for free text,
survey at https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/1/1/

Thanks

Phil.



Excellent! Completed survey.

So, if this goes through, will there be public-lod-CfP-PDF (as per my 
suggestion)? :P


-Sarven
http://csarven.ca/#i